In very recent times and since our last publication of ‘Musings From Beyond The Boundary’ there have been numerous instances on TV, and also occurring in our competition which could impact our decision making. These matters were briefly touched upon at our
General Meeting on 10 January, 2023, but for the benefit of all members the facts and
advice will be expanded upon in this edition of ‘Musings’.

COVID 19 POLICY
Following on from Matt Renshaw playing in the Australia v South Africa test match after testing positive to Covid we had a situation in two matches on the weekend of 7/8 January, 2023, where covid positive players participated. In consideration of our members and particularly those who are immune compromised or have loved ones who are immune compromised, your Executive developed a Policy enabling umpires to withdraw from their appointment if they felt unsafe. A copy of that policy has been forwarded to all members by Secretary Michael Guy. A copy of the Policy has also been forwarded to Cricket Gold Coast.

MICHAEL NESER CATCH
Many of us witnessed the extraordinary vision of Michael Neser taking a catch in a BBL match where he caught the ball inside the boundary, threw it in the air and then recaught
the ball beyond the boundary whilst still in the air, threw it up and into the field of play and again recaught the ball. The batsman, after 3rd Umpire review was given out caught. There has been much discussion and controversy about the dismissal, but under the current ‘Laws’ the decision was correct.
The relevant laws are:-

33.2 A fair catch
33.2.1 A catch will be fair only if, in every case either the ball, at any time or any fielder in contact with the ball, is not grounded beyond the boundary before the catch is completed. Note Laws 19.4 (Ball grounded beyond the boundary) and 19.5 (Fielder grounded beyond the boundary).
19.4 Ball grounded beyond the boundary
19.4.1 The ball in play is grounded beyond the boundary if it touches

• the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary;
• the ground beyond the boundary;
• any object that is grounded beyond the boundary.
  

19.4.2 The ball in play is to be regarded as being grounded beyond the boundary if

• a fielder, grounded beyond the boundary as in 19.5, touches the ball;
• a fielder, after catching the ball within the boundary, becomes grounded beyond
  the boundary while in contact with the ball, before completing the catch.

19.5 Fielder grounded beyond the boundary
19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is
in contact with any of the following:

• the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary;
• the ground beyond the boundary;
• any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary;
• another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers
  that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding
  of the ball.

19.5.2 A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be
grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before
his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not
entirely within the boundary.

Editors comment: A bit complicated ? – Yes.
Solution: Remember,
• the fielder must start the process from within the field of play,
• the fielder must NOT be grounded beyond the boundary whilst holding the ball, and
• must finish the process within the field of play whilst regaining a hold of the ball.

Further Comment: Remember CGC boundaries are a long way from naked eye view of the
Umpire and the boundaries are sometimes ill defined. Before giving any decision dismissing
a batsman you must be satisfied (certain) that the batsman is OUT. If in doubt – Not out.

ADAM ZAMPA ATTEMPTED RUN OUT OF NON STRIKER.
Once again during a BBL match, Adam Zampa was bowling and the non striker was leaving his crease early, and gaining an advantage (considered to be unfair). Zampa decided to attempt to run the non striker out. However Zampa completed the ‘swing of the bowling arm’ past the point of when he would have been expected to release the ball.
The Umpire gave the correct decision of not out. For information the following applies:-
38.3 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early
38.3.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.

CALL OF DEAD BALL IN THE CASE OF SERIOUS INJURY
There has been significant discussion around the practical application of one of the changed Laws this season, namely Dead Ball and the scenario when a batter suffers a “possibly serious injury” and a dismissal subsequently occurs. After significant consultation with CA and the MCC, advise has been received that the current MCC position is as follows:

1. If DB is called by either umpire before the incident causing the dismissal
   (i.e. treading on the stumps, run out or a catch being taken), that DB call is
   back-dated to the moment of the impact and so the dismissal cannot stand,
   as the ball was already dead.
2. If DB is not called by either umpire before the incident causing the
   dismissal, the ball becomes dead at the moment of the dismissal, and so
   the dismissal will stand.
3. When #2 above happens, there is no need for the umpire to call & signal
   DB, because the ball has already become dead on the dismissal – but only
   assuming it’s given out, when the ball is deemed to be dead at the instant of
   the incident causing the dismissal.
4. An umpire, thinking of the player’s safety, may call Dead ball and summon
   medical aid after the “dismissal” and before raising his/her finger for giving it
   out. Of course, with this happening quickly and having the plight of the
   injured player rightly in mind, it creates a bit of a grey area. In such
   circumstances, a dismissal is probably warranted but it would be up to the
   umpires on the day to make what they feel to be the correct decision in the
   circumstances.

Editors comment: – It is most unlikely that the Umpires (Non strikers end or strikers end)
would have time to call dead ball in a hit wicket or even a catch situation before the
dismissal is effected. It is more likely that during a run one of the batsmen could suffer a
serious injury and this opinion could be applied.
Remember hit wicket decisions are to be given by the strikers end umpire (MCC Law 31.5).

FIELDING SUBSTITUTES AND TIME PENALTIES
One of our newer umpires asked the question about time penalties applying for bowlers leaving the field of play and being replaced. The question asked was whether, when the bowler returned to the field did he have to wait for the equivalent amount of time he was
off the field, before again bowling? The following provides the answer:-
CGC Playing Condition (PC) 24.2 (page 23 General Playing Conditions) does include the time restriction on a bowler when he has returned to the field after having left the field and replaced.
However , in an ‘explanation box’ appearing at the conclusion of the relevant PC, the explanation provides for that time penalty only to apply if the bowler was replaced by a substitute fielder from outside the nominated 12 players (Premier Cricket) or 13 (Community Cricket). Therefore, if the bowler is replaced by a player from within the nominated 12 there is no time penalty to be served by the bowler.

What seems to be ‘tradition’ in CGC is that ‘without restriction’ is interpreted as a ‘free pass’ to come and go as they please, which of course is within the spirit of the relevant PC. This of course is in contravention of MCC Laws ( Laws 24.2.2 and 24.4 ) which requires the
departing fielder to inform the Umpire of his departure and for the oncoming fielder to advise the umpire of his arrival, which if not done, can result in a 5 run penalty, if he comes into contact with the ball and not having informed the umpire of his arrival on the field.
Editors Comment: There is no intention on the part of the Editor to encourage GCCU&SA members to apply Laws 24.2.2 or 24.4) in CGC matches. To do so would be wrong, however we should be aware of these Laws in case we umpire under different PC’s which
do not have Unrestricted interchange.

ROLLING AND MOWING THE PITCH DURING THE MATCH
Two of our diligent Umpires observed the pitch being rolled prior to the start of the second days play in a Div. 1 match on the weekend of 7/8 January, 2023. Their inquiries of the curator revealed that the curator had rolled for about 8 minutes and had mowed the pitch
to a level of 8 mm (the same as the original preparation). These actions took place on the second day during the innings of the home team. The away team objected to these actions and made known their intention to lodge a complaint with CGC.
At this stage the Umpires were unable to do anything further than to take some notes in case they are later called upon to provide information to CGC, which they did.
Editors Comment – What is the answer?
This is an interesting situation which the PC’s do not directly address. PC 6.3 Selection and Preparation speaks to games scheduled for consecutive days 6.3.ii (a) and (b), but only for remarking creases and mowing the outfield. Whereas 6.3.iii only deals with rolling the pitch at an innings break.
6.3 Selection and Preparation
[A] The pitch and grounds shall be prepared as follows before the commencement of play each day:
(i) Where a competition match is scheduled over non-consecutive days the pitch shall be freshly prepared and the ground mown. The pitch should be prepared as closely as possible to that which was prepared for the first day’s play.
(ii) Where a competition match is scheduled for consecutive days:
(a) The creases shall be remarked on each day of the match on which play is expected to
take place.
(b) The outfield shall not be mown except for on the first day of the match on which play is
scheduled to take place.
(iii) Despite any preparations as in (i) or (ii) above, the captain of the batting side exercise his
option of rolling as set out in Law 9, if a roller is available to both teams at each innings
break of a match.

It appears under CGC Playing Conditions that the curator should not have rolled the pitch as there was no innings break overnight. It is important here to remember that CGC Competition is played under MCC Laws unless varied by CGC Playing Conditions.
The curator may well argue that he was allowed to roll the pitch before the start of Day 2 in compliance with, Law 9.1.1.
9.1.1 Frequency and duration of rolling
During the match the pitch may be rolled at the request of the captain of the batting side, for a period of not more than 7 minutes, before the start of each innings, other than the first innings of the match, and before the start of each subsequent day’s
play. See 9.1.4.
The question of mowing the pitch on the second day is silent. Does this mean that we have to refer back to the Laws of Cricket, which at Law 9.3.2 The pitch and outfield tells us:-
9.3.2 The pitch and outfield
In order that throughout the match the ground conditions should be as nearly the same for both sides as possible, both the pitch and the outfield shall be mown on each day of the match on which play is expected to take place, if ground and weather conditions permit. If, for reasons other than conditions of ground or weather, complete mowing of the outfield is not possible, the Ground Authority shall notify the captains and umpires of the procedure to be adopted for such mowing during the match.
9.3.3 Timing of mowing
9.3.3.1 Mowing of the pitch on any day shall be completed not later than 30 minutes before the time scheduled or rescheduled for play to begin on that day, before any sweeping prior to rolling. If necessary, debris may be removed from the pitch before
mowing, by hand, without sweeping. See 9.2.3.
Editors Comment – It could be argued that home team curator has complied with the Laws of Cricket regarding
the mowing on the second day.
This incident highlights that our PC’s from time to time need to be amended. If you specify some things, but leave others silent, It is open to the interpretation that the silent ones revert back to the Laws of Cricket, just as it is outlined in the introduction to the CGC PC’s.

Another highlight is that our regular editions of ‘Musings From Beyond The Boundary’ will play an important role in the contribution from GCCU&SA in the preparation of CGC P.C.’s for the 2023-2-24 season.

Best wishes from the Training Team.